Posted by John Galt
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 21, 2013 at 11:21 am

No one can control guns anymore than they can control drugs. It is all politically motivated sturm und drang.
Law abiding firearms owners are NOT the problem, and when looked at in something other than hysterical political posturing, illegal firearms deaths fall WAAAY behind auto deaths and most other forms of missadventurers. Nation wide, law abiding firearms owners defend themselves at least 100,00 times a year (FBI statistics) mostly never firing a shot.
You need your belts through all your belt loops, not blindly following your political master's orders.
Get to work oh the REAL problems, unemployment, the economy, fiscal responsibility, education, infrastructure.
Or do you choose to spend the next year on smoke and mirrors like Obama did in his first year ramming through a severely flawed Obama Care plan when jobs and the economy were crumbling?
Please think, think, and think again.

Posted by Gun Control
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 21, 2013 at 12:16 pm

I think it is worth pointing out the Oscar Pistorius case here.

It is true to say that gun control may not stop criminals having guns, although it may make it more difficult to steal them from law abiding gun owners.

However, Oscar Pistorius was a legal gun owner in a country where there is high gun crime and also high gun controls with lots of background checks, licensing laws etc. Whether he awoke in the middle of the night and thought there was an intruder in the home or whether it was some form of domestic violence is irrelevant to the end result. His legally owned gun killed an innocent victim and did not protect either of them from crime. If the girlfriend also had had a gun on her person, there is no reason to believe she would have taken it with her to the bathroom, so a gun would not have helped her. And, even if she had had a gun and was able to use it and kill her attacker, it would not have altered the fact that a gun destroyed two lives.

This event should make everyone realise that a gun at home is more likely to kill someone in the family rather than protect against crimes.

Wake up people. Guns do kill people who would otherwise be alive and by people who are mentally sound. It is too easy to make a mistake, and it is too easy to use a gun in anger.

Posted by Abe Mitchell
a resident of Meadow Park
on Feb 21, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Here is the ideal chance for all the local "Hoods" to start by handing in their pistols to the correct authority. Hopefully they shall have the sence to realise that life is for living and not for wandering around holding some poor person at random pointing a pop-gun at them. Come on "Hoods" educate yourselves!!

Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 21, 2013 at 12:26 pm

OK so consider the 2nd Amendment. If you believe it strictly from one vantage point then it should allow the citizenry to have black powder muskets, old cannons, etc. The weapons in place at the time of the original signing.

Or if you want to modernize then you would logically advocate that citizens/states can possess any and all weaponry that the federal government currently does. I could have a 50 caliber machine gun, a tank. Nevada might nuke California over Indian Casinos's.

But we've already moved beyond black powder weapons, yet short of all out parity for citizens/states and the federal government.

So it would not be such a stretch to now progress to: 1) banning semi-automatic rifles (banning "assault rifles" is a ritual in futility---just cut to the essence) 2) banning clips over X amount 3) universal background checks 4) outlawing the secondary gun market 5) reverse the NRA directed knee-capping of the ATF in all it's variants (can only check a gun store once/year, no director, and on and on) 6) background checks for ammunition purchases also....

If that mother in Newtown wasn't allowed to even own all those semi-automatic weapons, clips, ammo, the tragedy would have been downgraded by a ton.

The NRA is now political toast. President Blackula is coming for all your guns! Better move to an island or form a new commonwealth. Now all they have left is saying "but it won't work" "the guns are already out there" "guns are like drugs", etc. Sour Grapes for the losers.

For all the latter day secessionists this must be hard times. Truly if you think you're going to have to one day overthrow the government (and with a Black Prez this must loom large on your horizon) study history a bit. You turn the military to your side, storm the Bastille so to speak, etc. You don't just play at it while also enabling the slaughter of the citizenry.

If you want to protect your home and family with a weapon you can buy a pistol, shotgun, bolt or lever action rifle. If you want to overthrow a tyrannical government you'll need more than a bunch of yahoo's with assault rifles anyway.

Posted by obama
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 21, 2013 at 3:08 pm

Hopefully equal time will be spent at these events to place attention on mental health issues that account for a majority of gun violence incidents that seem to be repeating themselves again and again only because politicians are only focused on one aspect of the problem. If only cops have guns, then we will be faced with incidents such as the LAPD officer who killed innocent people and police officers who raided several random LA homes of innocent residents at gunpoint in error because they were "mistaken" and shot up a pickup with two innocent bystanders in LA county because it was "mistaken" for a reported pickup used by the LAPD officer on the run. The issue clearly points to mental health issues among those choosing to perpetuate crimes and law enforcement personel who are given certain unequal rights by our society and misled government officials to "shoot first" with little or no accountability.

Posted by Modern
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Nothing is 'already decided' in the USA, hence the term 'amendment'. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that is meant to grow and evolve with the people it speaks for and represents. We are not a country frozen in 1776. We abolished slavery, gave women the right to vote. We have the power to define the word "arms" in a world that now includes semi-automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, and high capacity ammunition clips.

Second, you are correct about slavery and women's suffrage, but listen to what you are saying. Those things were changed by amending the constitution, not by simply re-interpreting the intent of the original document. There is a real danger to liberty when you do that. It might work well for one side at a certain time, but later, the same logic could be used against you. Already, you can see a movement by some to ban "hate speech." That might be great now for some folks, but at a later time, those very same people might be squelched when the things they are saying are labeled as "hate speech."

So, if you really want more gun control, then you need a constitutional amendment to get it. I, for one, would be totally against such an amendment, but I would welcome the discussion.

If you want to have a vigil or a rally, or a gun buyback, I think that's great! It doesn't affect my freedom in the slightest. This is America! Excercise your rights!

I think ideally you would spend some time learning more about the issue. You might even take the time to get to know someone who participates in target shooting activities. As you can probably imagine, the overwhelming majority are normal, everyday people with familes and jobs, not deranged "doomsday preppers" as have been portrayed in the media.

Also, the AR-15 is the gold standard in target shooting rifles. It is accurate, light with lower recoil, making it a great test of the shooter's accuracy. People of all different backgrounds participate in these competitions, which are actually very slow and methodical, requiring lots of patience! Whether a magazine capacity limit is justified or not - who knows. I personally have mixed feelings about it.

I think you should recognize that many people who believe in 2nd ammendment rights are concerned about an incremental loss of their freedom. Think about abortion rights advocates - even though late-term abortions seem gruesome to most, they may view restrictions as an incremental step towards a near complete ban on having an abortion. Likewise, gun rights advocates are, I think, reasonably concerned that little restrictions may lead to bigger ones and bigger ones. Its not so crazy!

Instead of focusing on "gun violence," why don't we focus on "violence." Is a murder less horrendous because it was carried out by knife or fist? Why don't we focus on fixing the schools? What solutions are out there, be they private or governmental that can help end multi-generational cycles of poverty, family erosion, dependance on welfare, hopelessness, anger, poor health, etc.

We could ban guns tomorrow, but I think soon enough just as many people would be beaten, stabbed and raped and shot with illegal guns. Look at prisons - no guns, but violence still exists - why?

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 21, 2013 at 5:45 pm

MK - you probably know this, but it's easier for many to kill many w/a gun than by hand to hand combat or w/a knife. But you knew that. The silly, senseless mentions of knives & fists is getting tiresome. Look at what happened in Vegas this morning & in So Cal the other day. Oh, yeah, & the majority of these crimes w/guns are committed by men. Let's talk about that, shall we? It's certainly more useful than talking about fists & knives.

Posted by Modern
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2013 at 8:51 pm

MK - a lot of words just to express slippery slope fears. I was responding to Karen's post that implies that the Constitution is set in stone. It's not. Other than that I learned nothing new from your post. Same old rhetoric that the NRA repeats over and over to keep its dues payers wide eyed and obedient. Great marketing campaign to line the deep pockets of the gun industry. I am ok with target shooters having their weapon of choice but if they want to own something that powerful then they should bear added responsibility for it: license and training, background check, annual registration, insurance, mandatory locks and storage in a locked safe when not in use.

Posted by A Tough Policy Choice Be You Democrat or Republican
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2013 at 9:09 pm

I would have to say, this is one subject which is really difficult to choose a side. On the one hand, in Palo Alto and other cities along the peninsula, there have been recent home break-ins where the perpetrator knocked down the door in order to enter the premises. In Palo Alto, we have also had brazen people attach unsuspecting residents. Shouldn't we be allowed to arm ourselves in these cases? Then, we have the recent event of Oscar Pistorius, who has confessed to murdering his fiancee, but in self-defense with the thought that someone was breaking into his home. I am certain he now wishes he did not have a gun in the house. Then we have the Newton, CT shootings where someone with apparent mental illness, had access to not just guns, but assault weapons. And of course, the most recent case with the former LAPD officer who went on a shooting rampage.

We should be able to arm ourselves for both recreational reasons, i.e. hunting, and self-defense. However, as humans do on occasion we have a tendency to over do it. Where do we draw the line?

It is a tough choice. But something needs to be done about the "mad" people who get access to assault weapons, or even feel they have the power and right to take another person's life just because....

Much has been discussed about the limits of hardware covered by the 2nd amendment, but the obvious solution is rarely considered. Sure technology has changed the nature of weapons in 200 years, and as a proud NRA member, I have no interest in owning a rocket launcher or any high tech military weapon. Let's all agree that civilians should not have access to modern military weapons such as hand held anti-aircraft rocket systems. Now consider our police services that employ weapons to defend themselves in a difficult and risky job. The police do not use weapons to enforce the law, but to defend themselves while they enforce the law. I simply suggest that civilians should have access to the same hardware to defend themselves as the police do. Both civilians and the police will not gear up to defend the USA around the world, but we may both encounter the same criminals locally.

Posted by neighbor
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 22, 2013 at 8:37 am

Apparently, all one has to do is go to Nevada to get guns - and then they can be brought anywhere, including into California.
Probably some horrendous guns were used in the recent Las Vegas gun spree, which killed an innocent taxi driver and taxi passenger, as well as an "aspiring rapper" from Oakland, who somehow manages to afford a Maserati (!) and be out at 4AM on a Wed nite while having "three small children" (out of wedlock and not supporting them, I suppose), who will now likely be in the foster system. I have heard conflicting reports as to whether HE had a gun and was firing at the thugs in the luxury SUV who were firing at HIM...we need to get really tough penalties on those who use guns while in the commission of a crime, and particularly if inncocent bystanders die/are injured as a byproduct. Too many guns, too many in the hands of horrible criminals. The streets need to be safe for regular folks to walk/drive down them.
I don't own a gun and am disturbed by the idea that I must get one to protect myself; I would prefer limiting civilians to legally purchased, reaonable guns and coming down like a hammer on criminals convicted of using ANY gun in the commission of a crimee. Our laws are too soft now, it is obvious, and they have no fear. I am also sick of the gangs, especially foreign ones like MS-16 or whatever the South American one is called, dominating regions of this country. They need to be dealt with by the police and or military.
Gun buybacks don't sound like they can be effective; someone might even steal a gun and then get cash from a buyback program. It must be a drop in the bucket of the problem...

Posted by obama
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 22, 2013 at 9:42 am

To those displaying hand-wringing indecisiveness, by all means sell your guns to the government. The police and the government are your friends and will protect you. Note: Over 300 New Orleans police officers went AWOL when Hurricane Katrina struck leaving residents to fend for themselves. Less than 50 officers were fired for this heroic act. Now if we can just get local police departments to document that guns bought at their sponsered "buy back" events are actually destroyed as opposed to ending up stockpiled, sold, or in some officers gun collection. Good luck!

Posted by Worriedmom
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:42 am

Let's make assault weapons AND handguns illegal. What purpose do they serve but to kill people? Or for people to kill themselves. The majority of suicides involves handguns and suicides represent a large percentage of handgun deaths.

I cannot see anyone owning a handgun for "protection" if the owner is a responsible gun handler. By the time he gets to his gun safe, opens it, and goes to a different area of his home for ammunition, loads the gun and uses it ............. well, you get the point.

Posted by not worried
a resident of another community
on Feb 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Worried mom, fortunately and unfortunately, my rights and your rights do not end where someones feelings begin. Fact is, you can have this fear of inanimate objects, but that will not change the fact that it is my right as an American to be armed.

I am not advocating everyone should own a gun, everyone should carry a gun, and we should have guns all over our community. What I will say, is anyone who has an irrational fear of guns, it in la la land, and has not tuned into the world today, or ever. Fact is, unlike you, I am not scared. I love my life, I love my community, and I love America. The only fear I have is of people like yourself who want to change my life.

You may say, well guns are bad? Next its my free speech (oh wait that one was taken away already) my fair trial (oh wait, that one is also been played with)....

The only reason the gun debate has been so hot, is because unlike someones 1st, or 4th or 5th, you can't take the 2nd away because it also pertains to material objects, material objects that are really good at stopping you from obtaining them without my permission.

For christ's sake, give this founding fathers stuff a break. We live in a different world. We need to look at Western Europe for guidance, just like our founding fathers did in their time.

We need to stop putting so many people in jails and stop being so paranoid about everything. To that end, eliminating almost all guns will be a great help. Let's tone down our excessive patriotism. If you love this country, criticize it every chance you get.

Posted by Aquamarine
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 22, 2013 at 7:17 pm

Funny how gun right advocates are always blathering in about their rights, as if theirs trump those, for good reason, don't care for guns. And they're so smugly self-righteous & play the victim to boot. How sad, because they're often amongst the most privileged demographic in the planet.

Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 pm

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Now trumped by 2nd Amendment spin idiocy of the highest order and in the most brutal and unrelenting of fashions. My right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness (and that of our children and other loved ones) trumps your 2nd Amendment spin.

One of the mother of the slaughtered children wanted his pictue disseminated. The very sight she had to view on an morgue table. The top half looked fine, but below the nose the whole face blown away. Let's not sanitize this.

OK you can own a non semi-automatic pistol or rifle. Provided you pass a universal background check, aren't buying for criminals, etc. But your supposed "right" to semi-auto weapons, to large clips (magazines if you like), to travel to another state or go to a gun show to circumvent any gun registration....these supposed "rights" you conjur pose an ever growning threat to the rest of us. It must and will end. Personally I'd like to see Sherman's March 2.0 and go wrest the guns out of all the demented rednecks.

But meanwhile the gun nuts threaten all of us with their stance and idiocy.

"First, they are called "magazines," not "clips." "

The above is another obscufation by the gun nuts. Some little "mistake" of nomenclature is then used to whip up "they don't know what they are talking about" spin. Or "now isn't the time to talk about it". True , now is not time. The time is way overdue.

Posted by not worried
a resident of another community
on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:40 pm

As far as nomenclature, that is a huge issue, and to not think so is pure ignorance. So you think nomenclature does not matter, what is another group that screams "my rights", oh yea abortion (I am personally indifferent and don't care) I bet if a right wing politician called the "sac" that makes a baby the stomach, instead of the uterus, the left wing Paloalto online would go ape about the nomenclature and how this individual does not know.

Yes, to the firearm enthusiasts, you and the lawmakers that are coming out with these waste of time laws look like a sickly old white man discussing how babies come out of tummies.

As far as "my rights", the 2nd amendment should be held up like all our other rights should be, you should prize all of them and not allow any of them to fail.

Look to western europe? Oh you mean the folks that have not admitted they are in an economic downturn? Borrow money from the USA, and have been since 1939. (with no plan to repay). The guys fighting sharia law within their own anglo-christian countries. Cultural diversity folks, lets let in everyone and take more rights away because we have "feelings".

Let me tell you about how I escaped form the monotony of Palo Alto and moved to America, Where my county the size of Santa Clara County (thats right for you Palo Alto folks, from Menlo to South San Jose Gilroy, if you've ever been) has only 3 deputies on at night, and 4 during the day. How most of us Hunt when in season and use what nature provides for food.

America is not Palo Alto, and as much as you feel you know what is best for the world, you really don't.

Firearm owners being affluent? Yea, you got that wrong. Most firearm owners are not. Gun Control is racist and class warfare. Do you really think California's gun laws are to keep your children safe? It all started out with the black panthers, and the white man holding the minorities down. Besides gun control, there was chemical castration for retards, and forced abortions for those deemed mentally unwell (up until the late 70s, some say early 80s).

Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 23, 2013 at 5:39 am

Well congragulations on moving out of Palo Alto and finding "safe haven". Yeah. I saw the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome so can imagine.

I suppose you could find some comfort in imagining that this is only Palo Alto putting the NRA in a political grave. But it's a nationwide trend. Even gun owners mostly agree with almost all the new proposals.

I have nothing against hunting or people using reasonable firearms for self defense. But firearms in America are over the top.

Meanwhile I'll go hunt snails in my yard for food on the table. With a shotgun!

Posted by Just-The-Facts
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2013 at 10:13 am

> Just been reading more about the
> Oscar Pistorius case, again.

Trying to interject the Oscar Pistorius case into this discussion is premature, and typical of gun control advocates. The prosecution claims Pistorius killed her with premeditation. While they have yet to prove this case in Court, should they make their casedo you really believe that Pistorius would not have found some other way to kill that young woman if he did not have a gun close at hand?

Posted by Just-The-Facts
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2013 at 10:23 am

> But it's a nationwide trend. Even gun owners mostly agree
> with almost all the new proposals.

And nationally, gun owners also believe that there are more than enough "gun control" laws on the books already--which are not even remotely close to being implemented.

There are thousands and thousands of "gun control" laws on the books now--so many that it's almost impossible to put together a comprehensive list of extant prohibitions.

And then there is the issue of criminals using guns. What about let's beginning to streamline the so-called "judicial process", so that when people are charged with committing crimes with guns that their appeals process to severely curtailed, and other civil rights protections are reduced--such as the failure of the police to properly "Mirandize" suspects. The recent case of the killer of an East Palo Alto man being able to make fools out of the police and San Mateo County DA's office should be an example of "rights for criminals" have gone to far in the wrong direction.

When the data is seriously reviewed--it's clear that very few responsible gun owners are invovlved in murdering innocent people walking down the street--no matter how histerical the "gun control" advocates become.

Posted by Just-The-Facts
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2013 at 11:40 am

(Reposted to correct a few typos.)

> But it's a nationwide trend. Even gun owners mostly agree
> with almost all the new proposals.

And nationally, gun owners also believe that there are more than enough "gun control" laws on the books already--which are not even remotely close to being implemented.

There are thousands and thousands of "gun control" laws on the books now--so many that it's almost impossible to put together a comprehensive list of extant prohibitions. Washington DC is an example of where you can get arrested for having ammunition in your possessionwhich is totally insane.

And then there is the issue of criminals using guns. What about let's begin by streamlining the so-called "judicial process", so that when people are charged with committing crimes with guns that their appeals process are severely curtailed, and other civil protections are minimized--such as those pertaining to the failure of the police to properly "Mirandize" suspects. The recent case of the killer of an East Palo Alto man being able to make fools out of the police and San Mateo County DA's office should be an example of "rights for criminals" that have gone to far in the wrong direction.

When the data is seriously reviewed--it's clear that very few responsible gun owners are involved in murdering innocent people walking down the street--no matter how hysterical the "gun control" advocates become.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 23, 2013 at 12:15 pm

Another violent attempted armed robbery last night in PA. Man w/a gun on a bike attempted to rob a man in the Webster-Cowper garage. Bring on more gun buybacks to prevent guns from being stolen in home burglaries.

Cynic that I am, I didn't think this gun buyback would be successful but it sounds like it is. I'm glad to be wrong! Viva la paz!

Posted by All You Craven Sheep Need to WAKE UP
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm

Go turn in your guns, get an i.o.u, and have all your informations stored and distributed with freely. Link below.

Hope all you defenseless sheep get what is inevitably coming to you as the economy gets worse, money gets more & more inflated, and the ones with nothing or very little start targeting those who have the most assets... The police won't be there for you, as you all should know that "police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone". Police are simply trained state revenue generators with a hidden-ciriculum of keeping sheeple gated up and living the way the government deems to be "normal". Think for yourselves, and don't let opinionated mainstream media mold your beliefs. Read in between the lines, look at facts from sources that actually care about people, and always consider that the worst case scenario is possible.

I also find it very funny how the government defines individuals that are expressing their freedom of speech and presenting facts that the government does not want you to know as "radicals" or "conspiracy theorists". Psychologists and psychiatrists are there to train you to think like they want you to think. I think it's just sad that people can not think for themselves and are too naive to consider that the government and the world-banker mafia have their own agenda. They are certainly very successful in dividing the country into Democrat and Republicans, so that it is less likely for the country to ever come together and throw out Politicians and Officials that are making all the decisions.

Oh yea, Thank Obama for making former Monsanto VP as senior advisor of the FDA, genetic engineering has no ties to the government? hahaha prop. 37 should have passed but no ones vote makes a difference. S510- The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 is a good thing, right? No, it makes it illegal for you to grow and sell/trade your own food.

I also hope all of you know that the electoral college determines who wins the presidential nomination. Presidential elections are made to divide the people of this nation. OPEN YOUR EYES.

That's pathetic. I loaded my own 38 bullets years ago and could quick drop, unload all bullets quickly, and hit a body target with all at about 50 yards.

When you pump gas just use your trigger finger for practice. Also hold your rifle with boots hung from barrel one hand only (either stock or trigger area). If you build strength and such of both hands and the trigger finger then less distortion when firing.

Posted by Truthssayer
a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 24, 2013 at 4:30 pm

I'd like to add another comment showing the value of owning firearms.

First of all, it's a NATURAL RIGHT for every living creature on Earth to defend themselves from harm by whatever means necessary.

Secondly, in my immediate neighborhood in Los Altos over the past 40+ years, there have been NO successful burglaries. However, there were two attempts on two different homes and in both situations the perps left in body bags. Yes, we are a heavily armed neighborhood and I believe there's at least 1 firearm in every home.

Posted by Truthsayer
a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 24, 2013 at 4:41 pm

One final comment to clear-up some other ignorance expressed in the comments to this article.

California, among many other states, has a "stand your ground" law.

In short terms, that means one does not have to cower in fear or run away when intruders enter one's home, and deadly force can be used to "alleviate" the situation as I mentioned happened twice already over the past 40 years in my immediate neighborhood.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 25, 2013 at 11:35 am

Yeah, dog forbid you lose your precious TV or laptop in a burglary. It's better to shoot someone - hey, maybe even by "mistake" like Pistorius, than to make an insurance claim. Get a dog & a burglar alarm.